tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post2239526533557210979..comments2024-01-17T13:16:10.378-08:00Comments on Joseph4GI: THE INDEPENDENT: Barry Curtis Showcases Projection and Cultural BlindersJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-13938762259711714842013-11-11T02:29:45.862-08:002013-11-11T02:29:45.862-08:00circumcision... does no harm whatsoever... The hig...<i>circumcision... does no harm whatsoever... The highest quality studies referenced in the US National Library of Medicine say there is no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation or satisfaction.</i><br /><br />"Thanks for telling me what I think", said a bunch of angry circumcised men (and their partners).<br /><br />I'll never understand why they cannot acknowledge <em>at least</em> the obvious falsehood of their claims; the very fact that there are <em>so many</em> people on the Internet complaining about circumcision is <em>proof</em> that there <em>is</em> dissatisfaction.<br /><br />I think Mr. Curtis's [supposed] surprise at the backlash is genuine. He's finally seeing that, yes, <em>Vast Multitudes of People Do Complain!</em>—regardless of what some study of the "highest quality" purports.<br /><br />It is enough that people <em>think</em> circumcision is damaging; that effect by itself is damage.Tom Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12994425531096864789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-9437016173508724032013-11-09T21:00:04.130-08:002013-11-09T21:00:04.130-08:00Mr. Curtis is a fool. Imagine the outcry if he was...Mr. Curtis is a fool. Imagine the outcry if he was writing about FGM with those arguments! FGM supporters sound exactly like him. Intactivists haven't "broken the Internet". That's absurd. We are calling attention to a violation of human rights. Just like FGM. Just like gay rights. Just like all the other activists out there.<br /><br />Thanks again for another great post--and continuing to bring attention to the pathetic rag that is Wikipedia.Erik Lotspeichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08747594192456342935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-29122268176619904522013-11-09T19:52:18.262-08:002013-11-09T19:52:18.262-08:00BTW, Robert Darby, a medical historian and author ...BTW, Robert Darby, a medical historian and author of http://www.historyofcircumcision.net and the book "A surgical temptation" authored a paper on the children's right to an open future and how it applies to infant circumcision. Great paper by someone who has spent his time understanding the issue. Please visit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23365468dreamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708824168962037873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-49536879491833764362013-11-09T19:49:01.202-08:002013-11-09T19:49:01.202-08:00Barry says: "Of course, when the child grows ...Barry says: "Of course, when the child grows up and hits adolescence he may resent the decisions his parents made like many adolescents do."<br /><br />There is such thing as educating and raising children for an open future. You give them education, but you don't choose their career. You tech them family values and safe sexuality, but you don't choose their partners. Likewise, circumcision contradicts an open future, as you force them to have an unnecessary genital surgery that they may resent later. Not circumcising leaves an open future, so that when they are adults and capable of offering informed consent, they can make their own decisions.<br /><br />To circumcise a baby for non-therapeutical reasons you have to believe that a) the foreskin has no value to its owner, and b) your son has no right to retain non-vital parts of his own body. That is the moral fiber of infant circumcision promoters.<br /><br /><br /><br />Barry says: "I respect Kaynejack’s comment that at least discusses some evidence rather than the emotional spasms of other posters."<br /><br />Ethics are different from emotions. Science, and specially medicine, needs to be guided by ethics. Has Barry discussed ethics at all? No.<br /><br /><br />"If 99.8% of circumcisions go ahead without even those slight hitches..."<br /><br />If 99.8% of circumcisions went ahead without any complication, this would mean that the United States would have a recognice complication rate of 0.2% * 1.2 million = 24,000 babies suffering complications every year. While this number is not even close to the real number, the idea that we can dismiss 24,000 babies suffering complications every year, some of which can be lifelong, disabling, or even letal, just does not seem proper of a decent person. <br /><br /><br /><br />Barry says: "disrespectful of people’s abilities to decide how to live their lives."<br /><br />And this is the real ethical issue, and where Barry's words play against him. Many of us wished to live our lives with our whole genitals, but someone disrespected this before we were strong enough to be able to effectively defend ourselves or remove ourselves from the situation. But that was, how did he put it? "Part and parcel of life"?<br /><br />I rest my case. dreamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708824168962037873noreply@blogger.com